Despite some words to the contrary, the OC has changed. And despite supposed fears to the contrary, will change in the future.

If Christ's death means anything at all it means hope for a better future. After all, hope is THE divine gift. It is we humans that fouled the waters but that does not mean we have to remain in that condition.

There is much the OC can offer humanity. There is much the Western Church can offer.

What has not changed is that hope that has been implanted inside all of us which is the spark from which a united vision of the future will ensure.

^^If I recall from when I first read this some years ago, his plea was viewed by the Orthodox as an 'ex post facto' attempt to justify the relocation of his see from the historical see of L'viv in western Ukraine to Kiev where there was no significant Greek Catholic presence historically; as an attempt to wiggle into the dispute among the Orthodox groups in Ukraine; as evidence of his loyalty to Ukrainian nationalism as opposed to the charge that the Greek Catholics were first loyal to Rome rather than Ukraine and finally, as expressing what was probably a heart-felt, but ultimately naive hope.

That being said, there is some fair amount of critical introspection about the impact of Unia and as to the treatment of his church by Rome. However, not enough for him to fully criticize Rome in any way meaningful to the Orthodox. In the end the speech had little impact outside of his own flock.

^^If I recall from when I first read this some years ago, his plea was viewed by the Orthodox as an 'ex post facto' attempt to justify the relocation of his see from the historical see of L'viv in western Ukraine to Kiev where there was no significant Greek Catholic presence historically; as an attempt to wiggle into the dispute among the Orthodox groups in Ukraine; as evidence of his loyalty to Ukrainian nationalism as opposed to the charge that the Greek Catholics were first loyal to Rome rather than Ukraine and finally, as expressing what was probably a heart-felt, but ultimately naive hope.

That being said, there is some fair amount of critical introspection about the impact of Unia and as to the treatment of his church by Rome. However, not enough for him to fully criticize Rome in any way meaningful to the Orthodox. In the end the speech had little impact outside of his own flock.

Moscow, September 24, Interfax - Cardinal Lubomyr Husar, head of the Ukrainian Greek Catholics, following President Viktor Yuschenko, has spoken in favour of establishing a one Church in Ukraine.

According to the cardinal, all the church problems would be solved, ‘if Ukraine had one patriarch for all’. This is the basis on which both the Orthodox and Catholics could ‘return to the primary unity’, he believes as cited by the Religious Information Service in Ukraine this week.

At the same time, he adds, ‘there are no claims that a Greek Catholic should be the patriarch’; what is only important is that ‘this patriarch should be a person capable of uniting all’.

However, Husar lays down the condition ‘that this Church and this patriarch should be united with Rome’. It seems to mean that if the patriarch is not initially Uniate, he will have to join the Unia afterwards.

The Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church, its leader affirms, ‘continues the historical policy of the Kiev Metropolia’, but as the cardinal’s present designation of ‘supreme archbishop’ is little known in ‘the tradition of Eastern Churches’, ‘an ordinary Christian does not know what to do with it’. In Husar’s view, the UGCC ‘has long grown up to act as patriarchate, for it is a natural development for a Local Church in the Eastern tradition’.

At the same time the cardinal is concerned about ‘the failure of the Latin theology to appreciate any sharing between Local Churches and Rome’. The Vatican, he believes, understood unity ‘as subjection’ and this process was called ‘Uniatism’.

‘Denouncing Uniatism today’, Husar points out, he seeks ‘a vision of unity which should be built not on uniformity, but on the preservation of everyone’s own tradition in the form of sharing’. This is ‘a rather complicated’ problem and, to the cardinal’s regret, ‘not quite adequately solved’. The Ukrainian Greek Catholics, however, intend ‘to move towards its solution and to be in the vanguard’, though ‘not everyone in Rome has been made to change his mind’.

The Supreme Archbishop underscores that in the matter of one Church ‘much hangs on relations with the Orthodox’, referring to both the Ukrainian Orthodox Church linked with the Moscow Patriarchate and the unrecognized Ukrainian Autocephalous Church.

He believes however that among the Orthodox ‘the spiritual processes develop in a very much disordered way’ - a reason for which ‘we all are in a rather chaotic state, from which we should come out step by step’.

Husar says he would welcome the emergence of three patriarchs in Kiev at once, ‘Russian Orthodox, Greek Catholic and Autocephalous’, because they would make ‘three partners in negotiations’, and this would make ‘a concrete talk much easier’ and help to come ‘to the idea of one patriarch and one patriarchate’ much sooner.

According to the cardinal, ‘neither Moscow nor Rome will give us our unity’. It has to be developed independently. And then ‘Rome, Constantinople or Moscow, which is much younger compared to them, will just accept this fact’. He sees it more desirable to consider this issue ‘in a discussion in which various confessions and the government could participate’, since ‘the Ukrainian president has stated on many occasions that the government would like to see a one Local Church’.

In order to influence those Ukrainians who ‘are not disposed’ to such a dialogue today, the cardinal proposes to use the existing ‘examples of certain decisions’. He cites Northern Ireland, where ‘people are struggling for a life in harmony’. His also cited relations between the Palestinian and the Israeli as a similar example.

In Husar’s opinion, the negotiations on unification should be started by ‘people with higher education and solid religious training’. In doing so, they should understand that the aim of the negotiations is already clear: ‘the Church should be one, and we all recognize it’, so the unification ‘is not a matter of our good will. It is the commandment that is in point’.

That was 2005. What was the response to his initiative?

This interview discusses 'the answer of the Synod of the UOC[-MP] to the letter of Cardinal Husar concerning his idea of a "double unity" of Greek Catholics with Rome and Constantinople at the same time' (I don't know where to find the actual text of that answer):

Despite some words to the contrary, the OC has changed. And despite supposed fears to the contrary, will change in the future.

yes, the OC has changed, like the change from infancy to adulthood. Not like a sex change, which is what some ecclesiastical communities have done to themselves as of late.

« Last Edit: June 16, 2011, 11:52:18 AM by ialmisry »

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

"We are unchanged; we are still the same as we were in the eighth century...

~Alexis Khomiakov

Is it truly a fact that there have been no changes at all in the Orthodox Church since the eighth century?

Of course not.... we now use printing presses for liturgical books ands some hierarchs have been seen to have velcro on their vestments.

And nothing else has changed, except for that?

We have added in long-term addiction to narcotics as a ground for divorce.

It seems to me that you are forgetting about the change where Orthodox women in the West are now allowed to go contrary to the New Testament commandment of St. Paul to keep their heads covered in Church. This is a fairly recent change in Orthodox teaching or practice, is it not, for women to attend religious services with their heads uncovered, and isn't it contrary to the ancient practice and as well contrary to the recommendation of St. Paul?

"We are unchanged; we are still the same as we were in the eighth century...

~Alexis Khomiakov

Is it truly a fact that there have been no changes at all in the Orthodox Church since the eighth century?

Of course not.... we now use printing presses for liturgical books ands some hierarchs have been seen to have velcro on their vestments.

And nothing else has changed, except for that?

We have added in long-term addiction to narcotics as a ground for divorce.

It seems to me that you are forgetting about the change where Orthodox women in the West are now allowed to go contrary to the New Testament commandment of St. Paul to keep their heads covered in Church. This is a fairly recent change in Orthodox teaching or practice, is it not, for women to attend religious services with their heads uncovered, and isn't it contrary to the ancient practice and as well contrary to the recommendation of St. Paul?

This is the change that is thrown in our faces?

Based on experience around the world, only in America does this even enter into the discussion, as the vast majority of Orthodox women elsewhere still cover their heads. And even here, covering their heads is far from unknown (I was just at the local ROCOR parish, and they won't let you in uncovered).

But that aside, it is hardly anything to call an ecumencal Council over.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Based on experience around the world, only in America does this even enter into the discussion, as the vast majority of Orthodox women elsewhere still cover their heads. And even here, covering their heads is far from unknown (I was just at the local ROCOR parish, and they won't let you in uncovered).

But that aside, it is hardly anything to call an ecumencal Council over.

Let's go back to the beginning of this discussion:The quote that was given above:"We are unchanged; we are still the same as we were in the eighth century...

~Alexis KhomiakovI don't think that what is asserted here (We are unchanged; we are still the same as we were in the eighth century...) rings true because there has been a radical change in total contradiction to what was commanded by St. Paul in the New Testament. In the eighth century, St. Paul was strictly obeyed by the Orthodox Catholic Church, was he not? Now, in the west, the Orthodox practice is that this commandment of St. Paul does not have to be followed. But that was not true before because in the eighth century, the Orthodox followed the Bible and the commandment of St. Paul - universally and without reservation.

What is meant by "The Orthodox Church has not, does not, and will not change." is not that everything is the same it always has been. If that were the case, we would still meet in catacombs and have no canon of scripture. If that were the case, we would still use solely the Liturgy of St. James. If that were the case, we would not have electric lights in parishes. If that were the case, seminaries wouldn't exist. If that were the case, all services would still be in Koine Greek.

What is meant by "The Orthodox Church has not, does not, and will not change." is that there has been NO change in any part of the deposit of faith. Never has the understanding of the Holy Trinity changed. Never has the belief in the veneration of the Saints changed. Never has the belief in the necessity of the laying on of hands by bishops - for the ordination of priests and deacons - changed. This is what is meant by the Orthodox Church being unchanging.

"We are unchanged; we are still the same as we were in the eighth century...

~Alexis Khomiakov

Is it truly a fact that there have been no changes at all in the Orthodox Church since the eighth century?

Of course not.... we now use printing presses for liturgical books ands some hierarchs have been seen to have velcro on their vestments.

And nothing else has changed, except for that?

We have added in long-term addiction to narcotics as a ground for divorce.

It seems to me that you are forgetting about the change where Orthodox women in the West are now allowed to go contrary to the New Testament commandment of St. Paul to keep their heads covered in Church. This is a fairly recent change in Orthodox teaching or practice, is it not, for women to attend religious services with their heads uncovered, and isn't it contrary to the ancient practice and as well contrary to the recommendation of St. Paul?

Good grief! I had no idea! I can only say that Orthodox America constitutes 1% of the Orthodox world. What are the 99% doing?

"We are unchanged; we are still the same as we were in the eighth century...

~Alexis Khomiakov

Is it truly a fact that there have been no changes at all in the Orthodox Church since the eighth century?

Of course not.... we now use printing presses for liturgical books ands some hierarchs have been seen to have velcro on their vestments.

And nothing else has changed, except for that?

We have added in long-term addiction to narcotics as a ground for divorce.

It seems to me that you are forgetting about the change where Orthodox women in the West are now allowed to go contrary to the New Testament commandment of St. Paul to keep their heads covered in Church. This is a fairly recent change in Orthodox teaching or practice, is it not, for women to attend religious services with their heads uncovered, and isn't it contrary to the ancient practice and as well contrary to the recommendation of St. Paul?

Good grief! I had no idea! I can only say that Orthodox America constitutes 1% of the Orthodox world. What are the 99% doing?

Another possible change, concerns the attitude toward slavery. Although it is not that easy for me to pin down exactly the situation, it is true, is it not, that at one time in the past, Orthodox clerics did hold Romani or gypsy slaves in Romania, and it was thought to be an acceptable practice?

Another possible change, concerns the attitude toward slavery. Although it is not that easy for me to pin down exactly the situation, it is true, is it not, that at one time in the past, Orthodox clerics did hold Romani or gypsy slaves in Romania, and it was thought to be an acceptable practice?

Now why do you consider that a change? Do you not know that Christians had slaves and it has apostolic approval?

Why, Saint Paul devotes an entire epistle to a rich Christian slave owner exhorting him to take back a runaway slave and treat him kindly. Please see the Epistle to Philemon.

Another possible change, concerns the attitude toward slavery. Although it is not that easy for me to pin down exactly the situation, it is true, is it not, that at one time in the past, Orthodox clerics did hold Romani or gypsy slaves in Romania, and it was thought to be an acceptable practice?

Now why do you consider that a change? Do you not know that Christians had slaves and it has apostolic approval?

Why, Saint Paul devotes an entire epistle to a rich Christian slave owner exhorting him to take back a runaway slave and treat him kindly. Please see the Epistle to Philemon.

Right. That is true.But the teaching now is that it is wrong to enslave people.So that is one reason why I don't think that the statement quoted above: "We are unchanged; we are still the same as we were in the eighth century... ~Alexis Khomiakov:is completely accurate. The Orthodox Church has changed its teaching on the morality of enslaving people, has it not? I hope nobody here thinks that it is OK for a white European male to enslave a black African lady, even though he may treat her kindly? The teaching is that it is wrong now, is it not? And as well, the Orthodox Church in some countries has changed its teaching on whether or not women are to obey the commandment of St. Paul concerning wearing headcovering at religious services. So the question is this:As far as the Orthodox Church is concerned:1. Has the teaching on the morality of slavery changed from what it was in early times?2. Has the teaching on whether or not women are to obey Scriptures and the commandment of St. Paul concerning the wearing of headcovering during religious services in Church - has this teaching changed from what it was in the eighth century?

But in general communion practice in Lebanon is such that it's more or less assumed that everyone goes to the chalice at every single liturgy, which usually means that everyone present at the liturgy communes.

This is Nayla Tueni taking communion in the Maronite Church (around the fifth minute in the video). Nayla Tueni is an Antiochian Orthodox Christian, member of the Parliament, daughter of Gebran Tueni and granddaughter of Ghassan Tueni.

This is the funeral service of the Lebanese composer Walid Gholmieh a few days ago - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=10HSxCPsGZE.You see can the Antiochian Metropolitans Elias of Beirut and Elias of Tyre and Sidon concelebrating it with the Melkite Metropolitan of Beirut Youssef Kallas.

Another example is that this year the Orthodox and the Melkites celebrated jointly the Holy Unction on Great Wednesday in Sidon (Saida), the Orthodox priest there concelebrated it with the Melkite Archbishop of Sidon Elie Haddad.

Based on experience around the world, only in America does this even enter into the discussion, as the vast majority of Orthodox women elsewhere still cover their heads. And even here, covering their heads is far from unknown (I was just at the local ROCOR parish, and they won't let you in uncovered).

But that aside, it is hardly anything to call an ecumencal Council over.

Let's go back to the beginning of this discussion:The quote that was given above:"We are unchanged; we are still the same as we were in the eighth century...

~Alexis KhomiakovI don't think that what is asserted here (We are unchanged; we are still the same as we were in the eighth century...) rings true because there has been a radical change in total contradiction to what was commanded by St. Paul in the New Testament. In the eighth century, St. Paul was strictly obeyed by the Orthodox Catholic Church, was he not? Now, in the west, the Orthodox practice is that this commandment of St. Paul does not have to be followed. But that was not true before because in the eighth century, the Orthodox followed the Bible and the commandment of St. Paul - universally and without reservation.

Op cit. Viz supra. The inability of the Vatican to see clearly on the issue is a very large part of its problem.

If you mean that the Church is a stagnant organization that has no use for the Holy Spirit because everything has already been revealed and needs no further clarification, of course the Vatican isn't going to "see" that because that notion is false.

Didn't read my post above, did you?

Now I look like my baby picture, despite I'm taller, weight more, right now have a 5 o'clock (actually more) shadow. That's development.

I also have a cross tattoo on my wrist which you will search in vain for on my baby pictures. You call that developement but its not quite that: no matter how old I got, that tattoo wasn't going to appear until I had them apply it with the needle.

My best friend has four kidnies, from two kidney transplants. Not quite development there either. He looks like his baby picture, though, too.

I have my doubts about those who have a "sex change," that they resemble their baby picture in specific ways, but I concede that their faces are probably the same. You would have to get plastic surgery to change that, like Michael Jackosn.I remember when he married Miss Presley, someone said they would believe it when she had a baby that looked like he used to look. Not like this:

But that's the problem: ya'll at the Vatican can't make a distinction between growing and radical plastic surgery, because it's all change=development. So you appropriate it as a license to attribute the most outlandish things to the "deposit of Faith."

« Last Edit: June 17, 2011, 07:20:54 AM by ialmisry »

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Another possible change, concerns the attitude toward slavery. Although it is not that easy for me to pin down exactly the situation, it is true, is it not, that at one time in the past, Orthodox clerics did hold Romani or gypsy slaves in Romania, and it was thought to be an acceptable practice?

Now why do you consider that a change? Do you not know that Christians had slaves and it has apostolic approval?

Why, Saint Paul devotes an entire epistle to a rich Christian slave owner exhorting him to take back a runaway slave and treat him kindly. Please see the Epistle to Philemon.

Right. That is true.But the teaching now is that it is wrong to enslave people.So that is one reason why I don't think that the statement quoted above: "We are unchanged; we are still the same as we were in the eighth century... ~Alexis Khomiakov:is completely accurate. The Orthodox Church has changed its teaching on the morality of enslaving people, has it not? I hope nobody here thinks that it is OK for a white European male to enslave a black African lady, even though he may treat her kindly? The teaching is that it is wrong now, is it not? And as well, the Orthodox Church in some countries has changed its teaching on whether or not women are to obey the commandment of St. Paul concerning wearing headcovering at religious services. So the question is this:As far as the Orthodox Church is concerned:1. Has the teaching on the morality of slavery changed from what it was in early times?2. Has the teaching on whether or not women are to obey Scriptures and the commandment of St. Paul concerning the wearing of headcovering during religious services in Church - has this teaching changed from what it was in the eighth century?

All this concern over a defunct institution and custom differences in the New World. You are really grasping at straws and ignoring logs.

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Truth hurts I suppose regarding the comments about slavery and the Church, given the tenor of the 'I'm Shocked!' or the 'Well, it wasn't really sooo bad' response from some.

Here's a better truth since Roma were brought up by Stanley (sorry to digress):

The Orthodox Church in Slovakia, under the Diocese of Presov and Archbishop Jan has sponsored a Children's Home in the town of Medzilaborce, near the Ukraine border. (the hometown, I should note of the family of the late artist Andy Warhol ) This Childrens' home has primarily served the Roma population or the children of mixed Slovak/Roma relationships. Serving this population is still a very courageous thing to do in rural Slovakia as the historical enmity towards Roma remains a real problem.

Recently, with the assistance of a Slovak man who works for a social agency of the EU, a grant was obtained by the Presov Orthodox Diocese for a 1.5 million euro renovation and expansion of the Home. On July 14th, His Eminence, Archbishop Jan will serve Liturgy and dedicate the new wing.

Talk about 'pay it forward', this Slovak man came to Binghamton about ten years ago to study English through a UN project at the local community college. He had relatives here who would not put him up for the six months after he arrived. He was at the post office where he was trying to send a letter home but had difficulty expressing himself. My dad overheard and jumped in as he was adequate with Slovak. The man was a Roman Catholic, but we found him a room with a parishioner by the Church and he became a fixture for six months, working at the church's pirohi sales and being a part of the community. He never forgot the kindness shown to him and he found a way to repay it. This is what being a Christian witness is all about folks.

This Children's Home was been a special mission project of my parish of St. Michael's in Binghamton, NY of ACROD and a particular effort led by one of the esteemed elders of the parish who was from the area in Slovakia, fought in the resistance during the war and with the US Air Force in Korea who was made an Archon by the Ecumenical Patriarch for his charitable efforts.

A picture of Archbishop Jan and the late Metropolitan Nicholas a fews back at the St. Nicholas Childrens' home:

When we say that the Orthodox Church hasn't changed, as mentioned above, we are speaking of the faith. We have not, in any way, ever changed the Apostolic Faith.The Church itself, like a family, has grown. Small t "traditions" have changed. But the Big T 'Traditions" haven't changed. Whereas Western Christians, whether it's the Roman Catholics, or the Protestants, have all changed the Christian faith. None of them look anything like the Early Church, and the Apostles would be ashamed that these "followers" of Christ have taken such liberties with his teachings.

There cannot ever be any inter-communion between any Orthodox Church and churches that are outside of "The Church". Other Christian communions have to become Orthodox before any communion can occur. Communion exists only within the Orthodox Church, and that is something that will never change. "Inter-Communion" only exists within "The Church".Therefore, it doesn't matter if "Melkites" are Byzantine Rite. They are still in submission to the Pope (even if they are "autonomous" or "autocephalous"). The Pope is in schism to the Church. If Melkites wish to have communion with Orthodox, then they must denounce the Pope, sever communion with him, and come into Orthodoxy.

You cannot "play Orthodox", and having your rite as "Byzantine" and your beliefs as "Orthodox" isn't enough. The error of the "Byzantine Catholics" is that they recognize the Pope. If they truly want to be Orthodox, then they need to sever communion with him and all other Roman Catholics, and enter into communion with the Orthodox Churches.

When we say that the Orthodox Church hasn't changed, as mentioned above, we are speaking of the faith. We have not, in any way, ever changed the Apostolic Faith.

Same here. As Cardinal Newman said regarding papal infallibility:

"the proposition defined will be without any claim to be considered binding on the belief of Catholics, unless it is referable to the Apostolic depositum"

And also:

"10. And in like manner, as regards the precepts concerning moral duties, it is not in every such precept that the Pope is infallible [Note 5]. As a definition of faith must be {331} drawn from the Apostolic depositum of doctrine, in order that it may be considered an exercise of infallibility, whether in the Pope or a Council, so too a precept of morals, if it is to be accepted as from an infallible voice, must be drawn from the Moral law, that primary revelation to us from God."

When we say that the Orthodox Church hasn't changed, as mentioned above, we are speaking of the faith. We have not, in any way, ever changed the Apostolic Faith.

Same here. As Cardinal Newman said regarding papal infallibility:

"the proposition defined will be without any claim to be considered binding on the belief of Catholics, unless it is referable to the Apostolic depositum"

And also:

"10. And in like manner, as regards the precepts concerning moral duties, it is not in every such precept that the Pope is infallible [Note 5]. As a definition of faith must be {331} drawn from the Apostolic depositum of doctrine, in order that it may be considered an exercise of infallibility, whether in the Pope or a Council, so too a precept of morals, if it is to be accepted as from an infallible voice, must be drawn from the Moral law, that primary revelation to us from God."

What just moves the decision of said infalibility to the analysis and definition of what such deposit is. In practical terms it says that the pope is "infallible" as long as he repeats what is known to be true. In that sense we have a statemente and a consequence:

1) Everybody is infallible when stating a known truth;2) The real issue, then, is to establish what is a known truth regarding the Church;2.1) Since we need to know what is the Moral Law and the depositum of the doctrine before any papal statement to know if it is infallible, the whole point of having infallibility as a safeguard of doctrine is nullified.

Both consequences render the whole doctrine of papal infallibility meaningless and useless *in what regards espistemological and theological clarification of truth*.

What papists and protestants have in common is that both trust human, material aspects of the Church are the exclusive channels of the One True Infallible guide of the Church that is the Holy Spirit. Papists believe that the voice of the pope will necessarily be that channel in times of confusion and protestants think the Bible will be it. In choosing "elements" of the Church over the "whole" of the Church, that is, believing some elements of the Church can be the lens through which truth is defined or given to the rest, instead of believing that the Spirit manifests equally in all elements, they are "choosers" aka heretics. Not believing that the Truth is "according to the whole" (kat'holics), they believe the Truth is according to a part (kata meric; katapapic concerning the Romans and katabiblic for the protestants. What is sure is that neither is kat'holic). Trusting only one part to be definitive (pope or bible), they will miss the Holy Spirit when He manifests elsewhere, therefore, not having the plenitude of Grace and being, actually, separated from the organic wholeness of the Church. They are not members of the Church.

« Last Edit: June 17, 2011, 01:25:05 PM by Fabio Leite »

Logged

Many Energies, 3 Persons, 2 Natures, 1 God, 1 Church, 1 Baptism, and 1 Cup. The Son begotten only from the Father, the Spirit proceeding only from the Father, Each glorifying the Other. The Son sends the Spirit, the Spirit Reveals the Son, the Father is seen in the Son. The Spirit spoke through the Prophets and Fathers and does so even today.

When we say that the Orthodox Church hasn't changed, as mentioned above, we are speaking of the faith. We have not, in any way, ever changed the Apostolic Faith.

Same here. As Cardinal Newman said regarding papal infallibility:

"the proposition defined will be without any claim to be considered binding on the belief of Catholics, unless it is referable to the Apostolic depositum"

And also:

"10. And in like manner, as regards the precepts concerning moral duties, it is not in every such precept that the Pope is infallible [Note 5]. As a definition of faith must be {331} drawn from the Apostolic depositum of doctrine, in order that it may be considered an exercise of infallibility, whether in the Pope or a Council, so too a precept of morals, if it is to be accepted as from an infallible voice, must be drawn from the Moral law, that primary revelation to us from God."

What just moves the decision of said infalibility to the analysis and definition of what such deposit is. In practical terms it says that the pope is "infallible" as long as he repeats what is known to be true. In that sense we have a statemente and a consequence:

1) Everybody is infallible when stating a known truth;2) The real issue, then, is to establish what is a known truth regarding the Church;2.1) Since we need to know what is the Moral Law and the depositum of the doctrine before any papal statement to know if it is infallible, the whole point of having infallibility as a safeguard of doctrine is nullified.

Both consequences render the whole doctrine of papal infallibility meaningless and useless *in what regards espistemological and theological clarification of truth*.

What papists and protestants have in common is that both trust human, material aspects of the Church are the exclusive channels of the One True Infallible guide of the Church that is the Holy Spirit. Papists believe that the voice of the pope will necessarily be that channel in times of confusion and protestants think the Bible will be it. In choosing "elements" of the Church over the "whole" of the Church, that is, believing some elements of the Church can be the lens through which truth is defined or given to the rest, instead of believing that the Spirit manifests equally in all elements, they are "choosers" aka heretics. Not believing that the Truth is "according to the whole" (kat'holics), they believe the Truth is according to a part (kata meric; katapapic concerning the Romans and katabiblic for the protestants. What is sure is that neither is kat'holic). Trusting only one part to be definitive (pope or bible), they will miss the Holy Spirit when He manifests elsewhere, therefore, not having the plenitude of Grace and being, actually, separated from the organic wholeness of the Church. They are not members of the Church.

The Holy Spirit manifests in the entire Church.

In fact the entire Trinity indwells in you and me.

I guess you've never missed a cue. I know I have!!

So the infallibility of the pope is the infallibility of the Church save for those times when the Church is deeply divided on some issue or when there is a great pressure from the secular world that seeps into the hearts and minds of the faithful, sowing doubt and dissension. At that point the pope, through a charism granted by Christ and by the power of the Holy Spirit, is guaranteed the power, should he choose to seek it and use it, of speaking the truth and restoring unity to the Church.

Absolute unity may not occur because there are other minds and consciences involved, however the truth is there for those who seek it.

Infallibility is not some sort of automatic wonderwork. It is a promise made by Christ to protect the truth though the entire Church, with its earthly head given the power to speak the truth, concerning faith and morals, when asked or when all else fails.

When we say that the Orthodox Church hasn't changed, as mentioned above, we are speaking of the faith. We have not, in any way, ever changed the Apostolic Faith.

Same here. As Cardinal Newman said regarding papal infallibility:

"the proposition defined will be without any claim to be considered binding on the belief of Catholics, unless it is referable to the Apostolic depositum"

And also:

"10. And in like manner, as regards the precepts concerning moral duties, it is not in every such precept that the Pope is infallible [Note 5]. As a definition of faith must be {331} drawn from the Apostolic depositum of doctrine, in order that it may be considered an exercise of infallibility, whether in the Pope or a Council, so too a precept of morals, if it is to be accepted as from an infallible voice, must be drawn from the Moral law, that primary revelation to us from God."

What just moves the decision of said infalibility to the analysis and definition of what such deposit is. In practical terms it says that the pope is "infallible" as long as he repeats what is known to be true. In that sense we have a statemente and a consequence:

1) Everybody is infallible when stating a known truth;

Correction: every infallible statement is true, but not every true statement is infallible. Thus, when we say "St. Paul's Letter to the Romans was infallible" we are not just saying that what he wrote in it is true, we are in fact saying that he was divinely protected from error.

2) The real issue, then, is to establish what is a known truth regarding the Church;2.1) Since we need to know what is the Moral Law and the depositum of the doctrine before any papal statement to know if it is infallible, the whole point of having infallibility as a safeguard of doctrine is nullified.

Both consequences render the whole doctrine of papal infallibility meaningless and useless *in what regards espistemological and theological clarification of truth*.

This conclusion is faulty since you're not distinguishing between "true" and "infallible". But for what it's worth, I doubt think Newman was terribly concerned about PI being useful: I think he was mostly just glad that it wasn't an ecumenical disaster.

Correction: every infallible statement is true, but not every true statement is infallible. Thus, when we say "St. Paul's Letter to the Romans was infallible" we are not just saying that what he wrote in it is true, we are in fact saying that he was divinely protected from error.

And as we have correctly pointed, we can only know that because this knowledge is part of the depositum of faith. We can only know the right canon of the Bible from the depositum, which statements of the pope are infallible so long they echo the deposit, but how do we know what is in the deposit? "Through the Bible" or "through infallible statements of the pope" would just make that a circular argument.

The point I'm making is precisely that

1 - If only some, but not all, of the statements of the pope on doctrine and morality are infallible, and;2 - we can discern these only by comparing to an exterior (to the pope) deposit of shared and accepted knowledge, and;3 - We are not infallible in discerning what belongs or not to this deposit;4 - we are, in practice, unable to determine what he is saying is actually infallible or not. He may say some things that are, some that are not, but so long as the rest of the Church is not infallible in its discernement, papal infallibility, even if real, would be useless, since indistinguishable.

The *real* problem is that romans do not trust the Spirit of Truth. Even secular atheists understand the Spirit of Truth better and *that* is why they have been having the upper hand in the last century. Their trust on the capacity of Truth to prevail of its own accord, by whatever means, through whatever channels, is the true traditional, correct teaching about the guidance of the Church. When Romans and Protestants deny to Truth the power of prevailing of His own accord, even in times of confusion, that's just blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.

Jesus *never* promised that any successor to the Apostles, or to one Apostle in particular, would be the infallible teacher of the Church. We know that because He did promise us an infallible teacher, a unfailing guide:

The Holy Spirit (which blows wherever it wants) is the Infallible Teacher:But the Comforter, {which is} the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you. (S. Jo. 14:26)

The Holy Spirit (which blows wherever it wants) is the Faithful Witness:But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, {even} the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me. (S. Jo. 15:26)(Oh, did you notice Jesus' "opinion" about the procession of the Holy Spirit too? I don't see any "and from Me" there... Since He, elsewhere explains He sends the Holy Spirit, there must be some difference between procession and sending. But, surely Charlesmagne and the medieval popes knew better. They are infallible after all, Jesus must have comitted some mistake. )

The Holy Spirit (which blows wherever it wants) is the Unfailing Guide:Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, {that} shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.(S.Jo 16:23)

Whether Romans and Protestants like it or not, it's neither the Pope, nor the Bible. It's the Holy Spirit. Sometimes through a pope. Sometimes through a council. Sometimes through a priest. Sometimes through a monk. Sometimes through a lay person. Sometimes through a reading of the Bible. That is the meaning of "kat'holic" - according to all. The Holy Spirit can prevail by all and any means, through every and any element in the Church. The true Church is kat'holic, not katapapic, nor katabiblic. That is why Romans are not Catholic. They are Catapapic.

And how do all these elements can be the channel to the infallible teachings of the Holy Spirit? That's what S.Mt. 16:18 shows us: when they hold the Orthodox Faith. It can be Peter, it can be Paul, it can be Phillip, it can be a non-Jew pagan centurion, it can be the donkey of Balaam. It can be an atheist who trusts Truth more than you, righteously pointing the mistakes you fell for not trusting Truth. If you see with clear eyes, than the Spirit can, if He wills, act through you.

Trust the power of the Spirit of Truth. If atheist scientists, who don't even know Him personally know this and can feel His power, so can you. Stop limiting the truth. Stop trusting people or books. Have faith.

« Last Edit: June 17, 2011, 03:38:03 PM by Fabio Leite »

Logged

Many Energies, 3 Persons, 2 Natures, 1 God, 1 Church, 1 Baptism, and 1 Cup. The Son begotten only from the Father, the Spirit proceeding only from the Father, Each glorifying the Other. The Son sends the Spirit, the Spirit Reveals the Son, the Father is seen in the Son. The Spirit spoke through the Prophets and Fathers and does so even today.

When we say that the Orthodox Church hasn't changed, as mentioned above, we are speaking of the faith. We have not, in any way, ever changed the Apostolic Faith.

Same here. As Cardinal Newman said regarding papal infallibility:

"the proposition defined will be without any claim to be considered binding on the belief of Catholics, unless it is referable to the Apostolic depositum"

And also:

"10. And in like manner, as regards the precepts concerning moral duties, it is not in every such precept that the Pope is infallible [Note 5]. As a definition of faith must be {331} drawn from the Apostolic depositum of doctrine, in order that it may be considered an exercise of infallibility, whether in the Pope or a Council, so too a precept of morals, if it is to be accepted as from an infallible voice, must be drawn from the Moral law, that primary revelation to us from God."

The thing is, it is a complete lie, a fabrication that Papal Infallibility is an Apostolic Doctrine. Papal Infallibility is a development by the West, that came about so that the Pope could hold more power over his own domain. Neither the Pope, nor St. Peter are infallible in any way. Christ never, ever taught that, neither did his disciples, nor the Church Fathers.Sure, Rome can twist around the Church Fathers and the Saints all it wants to. But the fact remains, that Papal Infallibility is a complete lie and is simply a false doctrine taught by false teachers and wolves.

There cannot, and will not ever be reunion between any of our Churches so long as Rome refuses to revert back to the complete, whole, true Apostolic Faith that the Orthodox Church has maintained since Christ ascended into heaven.

Doctrines like Papal Infallibility are the reason why your church has been cut off from ours for a millenia.

When we say that the Orthodox Church hasn't changed, as mentioned above, we are speaking of the faith. We have not, in any way, ever changed the Apostolic Faith.

Same here. As Cardinal Newman said regarding papal infallibility:

"the proposition defined will be without any claim to be considered binding on the belief of Catholics, unless it is referable to the Apostolic depositum"

And also:

"10. And in like manner, as regards the precepts concerning moral duties, it is not in every such precept that the Pope is infallible [Note 5]. As a definition of faith must be {331} drawn from the Apostolic depositum of doctrine, in order that it may be considered an exercise of infallibility, whether in the Pope or a Council, so too a precept of morals, if it is to be accepted as from an infallible voice, must be drawn from the Moral law, that primary revelation to us from God."

The thing is, it is a complete lie, a fabrication that Papal Infallibility is an Apostolic Doctrine. Papal Infallibility is a development by the West, that came about so that the Pope could hold more power over his own domain. Neither the Pope, nor St. Peter are infallible in any way. Christ never, ever taught that, neither did his disciples, nor the Church Fathers.Sure, Rome can twist around the Church Fathers and the Saints all it wants to. But the fact remains, that Papal Infallibility is a complete lie and is simply a false doctrine taught by false teachers and wolves.

There cannot, and will not ever be reunion between any of our Churches so long as Rome refuses to revert back to the complete, whole, true Apostolic Faith that the Orthodox Church has maintained since Christ ascended into heaven.

Doctrines like Papal Infallibility are the reason why your church has been cut off from ours for a millenia.

IF that were true there would be no serious discussion concerning the resumption of communion so the best I can say is that you are entitled to your opinion.

When we say that the Orthodox Church hasn't changed, as mentioned above, we are speaking of the faith. We have not, in any way, ever changed the Apostolic Faith.

Same here. As Cardinal Newman said regarding papal infallibility:

"the proposition defined will be without any claim to be considered binding on the belief of Catholics, unless it is referable to the Apostolic depositum"

And also:

"10. And in like manner, as regards the precepts concerning moral duties, it is not in every such precept that the Pope is infallible [Note 5]. As a definition of faith must be {331} drawn from the Apostolic depositum of doctrine, in order that it may be considered an exercise of infallibility, whether in the Pope or a Council, so too a precept of morals, if it is to be accepted as from an infallible voice, must be drawn from the Moral law, that primary revelation to us from God."

The good cardinal was deluding himself: what many (the majority?) of the Vatican's followers agree as the first exercise of "papal infallibilty" occured in his life time, the declaration of the immaculate conception, a teaching unknown to the Apostles (we know as when it reared its hideous head it was condemned in the West as an innovation). It is drawn from that Scholastic invention, the Moral law, a primary revelation of their own making.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

When we say that the Orthodox Church hasn't changed, as mentioned above, we are speaking of the faith. We have not, in any way, ever changed the Apostolic Faith.

Same here. As Cardinal Newman said regarding papal infallibility:

"the proposition defined will be without any claim to be considered binding on the belief of Catholics, unless it is referable to the Apostolic depositum"

And also:

"10. And in like manner, as regards the precepts concerning moral duties, it is not in every such precept that the Pope is infallible [Note 5]. As a definition of faith must be {331} drawn from the Apostolic depositum of doctrine, in order that it may be considered an exercise of infallibility, whether in the Pope or a Council, so too a precept of morals, if it is to be accepted as from an infallible voice, must be drawn from the Moral law, that primary revelation to us from God."

What just moves the decision of said infalibility to the analysis and definition of what such deposit is. In practical terms it says that the pope is "infallible" as long as he repeats what is known to be true. In that sense we have a statemente and a consequence:

1) Everybody is infallible when stating a known truth;2) The real issue, then, is to establish what is a known truth regarding the Church;2.1) Since we need to know what is the Moral Law and the depositum of the doctrine before any papal statement to know if it is infallible, the whole point of having infallibility as a safeguard of doctrine is nullified.

Both consequences render the whole doctrine of papal infallibility meaningless and useless *in what regards espistemological and theological clarification of truth*.

What papists and protestants have in common is that both trust human, material aspects of the Church are the exclusive channels of the One True Infallible guide of the Church that is the Holy Spirit. Papists believe that the voice of the pope will necessarily be that channel in times of confusion and protestants think the Bible will be it. In choosing "elements" of the Church over the "whole" of the Church, that is, believing some elements of the Church can be the lens through which truth is defined or given to the rest, instead of believing that the Spirit manifests equally in all elements, they are "choosers" aka heretics. Not believing that the Truth is "according to the whole" (kat'holics), they believe the Truth is according to a part (kata meric; katapapic concerning the Romans and katabiblic for the protestants. What is sure is that neither is kat'holic). Trusting only one part to be definitive (pope or bible), they will miss the Holy Spirit when He manifests elsewhere, therefore, not having the plenitude of Grace and being, actually, separated from the organic wholeness of the Church. They are not members of the Church.

The Holy Spirit manifests in the entire Church.

In fact the entire Trinity indwells in you and me.

I guess you've never missed a cue. I know I have!!

So the infallibility of the pope is the infallibility of the Church save for those times when the Church is deeply divided on some issue or when there is a great pressure from the secular world that seeps into the hearts and minds of the faithful, sowing doubt and dissension.

Neither applying to either the IC nor the Assumption, two of the near universally held as ex cathedra statements (no official list exists, so we can't go beyond that).

At that point the pope, through a charism granted by Christ and by the power of the Holy Spirit, is guaranteed the power, should he choose to seek it and use it, of speaking the truth and restoring unity to the Church.

He kept pretty silent during the Three Chapter Controversy. And on the Pelagians (Pope Zosimos). And on the Monotheletes (Honorios), of course.

Infallibility is not some sort of automatic wonderwork. It is a promise made by Christ to protect the truth though the entire Church, with its earthly head given the power to speak the truth, concerning faith and morals, when asked or when all else fails.

It is really not nearly as tortured as you make it.

Yes, it is. A silly, meaningless and useless dogma.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Correction: every infallible statement is true, but not every true statement is infallible. Thus, when we say "St. Paul's Letter to the Romans was infallible" we are not just saying that what he wrote in it is true, we are in fact saying that he was divinely protected from error.

And as we have correctly pointed, we can only know that because this knowledge is part of the depositum of faith. We can only know the right canon of the Bible from the depositum, which statements of the pope are infallible so long they echo the deposit, but how do we know what is in the deposit? "Through the Bible" or "through infallible statements of the pope" would just make that a circular argument.

The point I'm making is precisely that

1 - If only some, but not all, of the statements of the pope on doctrine and morality are infallible, and;2 - we can discern these only by comparing to an exterior (to the pope) deposit of shared and accepted knowledge, and;3 - We are not infallible in discerning what belongs or not to this deposit;4 - we are, in practice, unable to determine what he is saying is actually infallible or not. He may say some things that are, some that are not, but so long as the rest of the Church is not infallible in its discernement, papal infallibility, even if real, would be useless, since indistinguishable.

I don't agree with your statement that "we are, in practice, unable to determine what he is saying is actually infallible or not." That's like saying a 3rd-century Christian saying "We are unable to determine what books are in the bible."

The *real* problem is that romans do not trust the Spirit of Truth. Even secular atheists understand the Spirit of Truth better and *that* is why they have been having the upper hand in the last century. Their trust on the capacity of Truth to prevail of its own accord, by whatever means, through whatever channels, is the true traditional, correct teaching about the guidance of the Church. When Romans and Protestants deny to Truth the power of prevailing of His own accord, even in times of confusion, that's just blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.

Jesus *never* promised that any successor to the Apostles, or to one Apostle in particular, would be the infallible teacher of the Church. We know that because He did promise us an infallible teacher, a unfailing guide:

The Holy Spirit (which blows wherever it wants) is the Infallible Teacher:But the Comforter, {which is} the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you. (S. Jo. 14:26)

The Holy Spirit (which blows wherever it wants) is the Faithful Witness:But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, {even} the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me. (S. Jo. 15:26)(Oh, did you notice Jesus' "opinion" about the procession of the Holy Spirit too? I don't see any "and from Me" there... Since He, elsewhere explains He sends the Holy Spirit, there must be some difference between procession and sending. But, surely Charlesmagne and the medieval popes knew better. They are infallible after all, Jesus must have comitted some mistake. )

The Holy Spirit (which blows wherever it wants) is the Unfailing Guide:Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, {that} shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.(S.Jo 16:23)

Whether Romans and Protestants like it or not, it's neither the Pope, nor the Bible. It's the Holy Spirit. Sometimes through a pope. Sometimes through a council. Sometimes through a priest. Sometimes through a monk. Sometimes through a lay person. Sometimes through a reading of the Bible. That is the meaning of "kat'holic" - according to all. The Holy Spirit can prevail by all and any means, through every and any element in the Church. The true Church is kat'holic, not katapapic, nor katabiblic. That is why Romans are not Catholic. They are Catapapic.

Perhaps you're unaware that Catholics consider the New Testament to have 27 books*, and only 2 of them were written by a Pope.

When we say that the Orthodox Church hasn't changed, as mentioned above, we are speaking of the faith. We have not, in any way, ever changed the Apostolic Faith.

Same here. As Cardinal Newman said regarding papal infallibility:

"the proposition defined will be without any claim to be considered binding on the belief of Catholics, unless it is referable to the Apostolic depositum"

And also:

"10. And in like manner, as regards the precepts concerning moral duties, it is not in every such precept that the Pope is infallible [Note 5]. As a definition of faith must be {331} drawn from the Apostolic depositum of doctrine, in order that it may be considered an exercise of infallibility, whether in the Pope or a Council, so too a precept of morals, if it is to be accepted as from an infallible voice, must be drawn from the Moral law, that primary revelation to us from God."

The good cardinal was deluding himself: what many (the majority?) of the Vatican's followers agree as the first exercise of "papal infallibilty" occured in his life time, the declaration of the immaculate conception, a teaching unknown to the Apostles (we know as when it reared its hideous head it was condemned in the West as an innovation). It is drawn from that Scholastic invention, the Moral law, a primary revelation of their own making.

Even if that were true, it wouldn't contradict his statement that "the proposition defined will be without any claim to be considered binding on the belief of Catholics, unless it is referable to the Apostolic depositum" etc.

P.S. Actually, it would be an interesting application of Newman's statement, since it would follow that the teaching on the IC would be "without any claim to be considered binding on the belief of Catholics".

The thing is, it is a complete lie, a fabrication that Papal Infallibility is an Apostolic Doctrine.

Yes, of course. Infallibility is a risible doctrine of Rome. As far as Catholic theologians go they can only affirm with certainty that it has been used twice in the history of the Roman Catholic Church, in the promulgation of the Immaculate Conception in 1854 and the promulgation of the Assumption in 1950.

Outside these two instances of papal infallibility in the last 150 years there is simply no knowledge of which papal statements are fallible or infallible.

It is in other words a really useless doctrine which has had no meaning in the life of the Roman Catholic Church apart from bolstering the ego of poor Pope Pius IX.

IF that were true there would be no serious discussion concerning the resumption of communion so the best I can say is that you are entitled to your opinion.

If you have read of any "serious discussion concerning the resumption of communion" many of us here would appreciate seeing the documents. The bilateral dialogue concerns itself with major disputed theological issues. I have not seen discussions on the resumption of communion.

Apart from the unexpected major upset in the 1980s when Orthodox delegates at the International Dialogue found themselves unable to state that Catholics are baptized..... what serious discussion has been devoted to this matter? This knotty question is something both sides seem unwilling to face openly. How can we achieve resumption of communion if there is no acceptance of Catholic baptism?

The thing is, it is a complete lie, a fabrication that Papal Infallibility is an Apostolic Doctrine.

Yes, of course. Infallibility is a risible doctrine of Rome. As far as Catholic theologians go they can only affirm with certainty that it has been used twice in the history of the Roman Catholic Church, in the promulgation of the Immaculate Conception in 1854 and the promulgation of the Assumption in 1950.

Outside these two instances of papal infallibility in the last 150 years there is simply no knowledge of which papal statements are fallible or infallible.

It is in other words a really useless doctrine which has had no meaning in the life of the Roman Catholic Church apart from bolstering the ego of poor Pope Pius IX.

Personally, I have to question what makes those two instances of ex cathedra any more certain than others.

The thing is, it is a complete lie, a fabrication that Papal Infallibility is an Apostolic Doctrine.

Yes, of course. Infallibility is a risible doctrine of Rome. As far as Catholic theologians go they can only affirm with certainty that it has been used twice in the history of the Roman Catholic Church, in the promulgation of the Immaculate Conception in 1854 and the promulgation of the Assumption in 1950.

Outside these two instances of papal infallibility in the last 150 years there is simply no knowledge of which papal statements are fallible or infallible.

It is in other words a really useless doctrine which has had no meaning in the life of the Roman Catholic Church apart from bolstering the ego of poor Pope Pius IX.

Personally, I have to question what makes those two instances of ex cathedra any more certain than others.

What are the others? That question generally reveals that the emperor is wearing no clothes.

The thing is, it is a complete lie, a fabrication that Papal Infallibility is an Apostolic Doctrine.

Yes, of course. Infallibility is a risible doctrine of Rome. As far as Catholic theologians go they can only affirm with certainty that it has been used twice in the history of the Roman Catholic Church, in the promulgation of the Immaculate Conception in 1854 and the promulgation of the Assumption in 1950.

Outside these two instances of papal infallibility in the last 150 years there is simply no knowledge of which papal statements are fallible or infallible.

It is in other words a really useless doctrine which has had no meaning in the life of the Roman Catholic Church apart from bolstering the ego of poor Pope Pius IX.

Personally, I have to question what makes those two instances of ex cathedra any more certain than others.

Just because they appear on nearly everyone's list. Except the ex cathedra list. The Vatican isn't releasing that.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth